Shooting at Florida high school

It's not a fallacy when it's true. Immediately after the incident in Florida, there were calls for a renewed assault weapons ban. We can have that conversation. At the end of the day, if future production of the AR-15 style rifle is banned I'll be upset. I think it will be a bone-headed, politically motivated decision, but I'm not really going to lose a whole lot of sleep so long as existing pieces are grandfathered (including their transfer to succeeding generations). However, the tone of the conversation is already changing.

A well educated and respected retired Supreme Court Justice wrote just today, "That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons..." He's not the only one that has moved from "Assault Weapons" to all semi-automatics. We see it right here in this thread with Steve and Anna. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to budge on that.

I'll talk about banning semi-automatics the moment you do the same to any and every civilian law enforcement agency in the United States. Convince them of the moral superiority of your arguments and then we'll talk.

So you're saying something like gun confiscation is just going to come as one brazen piece of legislation? No, it will come as a number of "common sense" restrictions. No, it's not a MUST, but there's the creation of prescident, and some unscrupulous life long politician WILL try to push things further.

It happened on Buffy too. Not that it really helped the kid in the end.

There are such things as precedent and political momentum.

As I said earlier, as troubling as Stevens' comments are, there is a positive note: they are a tacit admission that the Constitution is on the gun rights side, and that the 2nd Amendment is an impediment to enacting the kind of draconian gun control he envisions.

I live in California, where the term "assault weapon" has taken on an ever more expansive definition. I've no doubt that a full-on semi-auto ban will be seriously entertained in the near future.

Which time was that, exactly? Just curious.

HA! Good point - "nobody needs military style weapons that only belong on the battlefield" which would indeed include law enforcement! Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't many people advocating gun control also against the militarization of our police forces?

Paranoia strikes deep, doesn't it?

No matter what you or anyone else comes up with it will come up against the same fucking slippery slope argument...as if political only goes in one direction. That argument could be applied to every fucking law ever passed, which is why it's not all that easy to pass laws in the first place and even harder to override a fucking veto. The gun lobby has had things their own way for a long time, but it's because of long-term efforts, not because of some slippery slope.

For the 100th time, this has worked... no grabbing required.

And learn to leave the damn things at home...



Owning a gun in Canada

Firearms in Canada fall into three different categories: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited.

Non-restricted weapons are generally long rifles or shotguns used for hunting. Restricted and prohibited guns are weapons that meet the following criteria:

Prohibited weapons in Canada:

• Handguns will barrel lengths less than 106 mm in length
• Handguns that fire 25 or 32 calibre cartridges
• Rifles or shotguns less than 660 mm in length or with a barrel less than 457 mm in length
• Automatic weapons

Prohibited weapons can only be legally owned in Canada if they were registered by the owner when the weapon first became prohibited. See the RCMP site for full “grandfathering”* requirements and exceptions.

Other guns fall into a “restricted” category which allows certain people to own the weapons under certain conditions.

Restricted firearms in Canada:

• Any handgun that isn’t prohibited
• Any non-prohibited, semi-automatic firearm with a barrel less than 470 mm in length
• Any firearm that can be fired when reduced to a length less than 660 mm by folding or other means

To own a restricted firearm, a person must first possess the proper firearms licence, which includes participating in the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course.

On top of this, those wishing to possess a restricted firearm must also be issued an “authorization to transport,” which allows individuals to legally move the weapon from one location to another and is issued only at the discretion of the jurisdiction’s chief firearms officer.

The RCMP say most common reasons people are issued restricted firearm licences are for target shooting and gun collecting.

“In limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use in connection with one's lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life,” the site also reads.



*
"Grandfather" status
A Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) allows an individual to acquire only prohibited firearms in the same categories as the ones currently registered to them, and only if the firearms they wish to acquire were registered in Canada on December 1, 1998.

As a general rule, a PAL will indicate what prohibited firearms the licence holder is licensed to acquire by showing the section of the Firearms Act that grandfathers them, as follows:

• s.12(2): full automatics
• s.12(3): converted automatics
• s.12(4): firearms prohibited by former prohibition order No. 12
• s.12(5): firearms prohibited by former prohibition order No. 13
• s.12(6): handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or less or that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition. On licences issued on or after April 10, 2005, these firearms will be referred to as 12(6.1) firearms.

Eligibility to acquire a particular prohibited firearm will be confirmed during the transfer process. Grandfathered status allows the possession and acquisition of prohibited firearms that are already registered in Canada, but not the new importation of prohibited firearms into Canada.

^I find the restrictions and prohibitions rather arbitrary, and I don't see any provision for carrying a handgun for self-defense. It also looks like a lot of "mother, may I?" red tape.

The 106mm minimum barrel length on handguns explains why I'm seeing a lot of 4.2" barreled handguns on the market, rather than the traditional 4" models.

Ever notice that I've never proposed ANY gun laws of any kind?

Ah yes...the passive aggressive tactic.

And nothing of value was lost.

Notice how the argument was dismissed with a wave of the hand? And who is that is unwilling to have a real discussion?

Except for older or infirm people who can't handle more powerful guns. My mother and my aunt both had .32 revolvers for protection. Beretta markets a .32 Tomcat that has a tilting barrel design specifically to make it easier for weaker people to use. (It's not a .32, but S&W is offering a version of its Shield pistol in .380 with a slide that is easier to cycle, so there is a demand for easier to shoot/handle handguns.)

Also, there's been considerable development in .32 ammunition in recent years. The .327 Magnum is a .32 that offers near .357 Magnum performance in a considerably smaller package. It's developing a loyal following among shooters.

The .25 is not exactly a stellar round, but as a centerfire cartridge, it's probably more reliable than the similarly-powered rimfire .22 Long Rifle.

You have the right to bear arms, not the right to arms that don't get osteoporosis.

Anyhoo:

no shit! .25 & .32 cal are extremely dangerous - to the shooter! They will generally only piss off a bad guy and escalate the problem. I'm not going to dig out the ballistics but if memory serves they two of the most inefficient, lowest energy rounds ever designed. They are the Yugo of handgun rounds. Canada sure got this right!

I assume you mean "if he's wearing body armour"? Because if I got shot and wasn't wearing any, my first response would not be to critique you on your choice of ammunition, like you'd set the wrong cutlery out for the banquet.

you....apparently don't know much about these two calibers. Totally understandable but here's a good analogy: if a more commonly used handgun round like a 9 mil or.45 or .40
connects it would be like an average man getting punched in the face by a 250 pound professional heavyweight fighter. Odds are one hit would suffice!
But a.25 or .32 round would be like getting punched by that same fighters mother. That might take a follow-up frying pan or rolling pin to the noggin.
That said I have seen somebody shot by a.25 and while it was in a non-lethal spot (in theory but any bullet's path can deviate) they just don't have the high-octane stopping power or (more importantly) penetration to depend on for self defense. There are much better rounds that are more commonly sold.

You must be used to dealing with some fucked-up people, because if ANYTHING pierces my flesh, my first reaction will be to check it didn't hit anything vital and then stem any bleeding. I'm not worried about the size of the hole, the impact stagger or how deep it went.

The way some of you guys talk it's like you can't even get outta bed without tripping over an army of home raiders all 250lb+ and raging on PCP.

I didn't say you had, did I? I thought we were having a conversation.

Truth be told, the vast and overwhelming majority of the murders and attempted murders (involving guns) that I've worked featured a .25 ACP chambered weapon.

That was not a directly targeted statement. I'm sorry that it came off that way. My apologies.

Well, only because his demon-worshipping friends sacrificed him to open the hellmouth.

That'd be because unless it's in the course of your duties as an armed guard, body guard, or as a cop, you don't have that right in Canada. There are likely a few more exceptions, but I can't be arsed to look them up for you.

Oddly enough though, you tend not to need that right to carry in public either. We don't have very many public shootings, let alone shootouts. Not sure what red tape seems so discouraging? Getting a PAL is about as hard as getting a passport-about the only additional hurdle is the criminal BG check which pretty much makes you ineligible if there's an unpardoned felony conviction.

As I recall, short barrels were first prohibited because they were more likely to be used in a crime than any other available handgun than serve a public need (1983ish). You can still get bigger, more expensive, and harder to conceal handguns. You can still transport them or wander around private land with one.

I see no evidence of gun rights in Canada, only government-sanctioned privileges.

Not needing a right and not having a right are not the same thing.

The argument that "X is the most frequently used gun in crime so X must be banned" is a formula for banning all guns. When the most popular is banned, the 2nd most popular becomes the most popular.

If you can't carry it, you have no right to bear.

It's cute that you think your right exists without the government sanctioning it, but it's also an empty belief. They want'em, they'll take'em... and they have more bodies than you have bullets, likely more bullets too. Not like they haven't bombed civilians before, either.

No, those aren't the same thing. neither are hot and cold. It isn't entirely about need, it's about want... we don't want. By not wanting, we wind up not needing.

Except that it hasn't happened here, has it?

You can carry it, just not unsecured in public. We don't have a right to be armed in public... you say that like it's a bad thing?

It's a mind game they play on themselves. Happiness is a warm gun. Doing without their security blanket makes them uneasy. Their unease supersedes anyone else's over open/concealed carry.

Here's What Mass Attackers Have in Common

64% showed mental health symptoms before 2017 attacks: Secret Service